Jump to content

The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All


Recommended Posts

 

The concept makes sense, in theory. In order for the Obamacare scheme to work, they needed everybody in.

 

However, you don't need to be an economics expert to see where the DNC made two really obvious, stupid mistakes.

 

Mistake #1: No problems with pre-existing conditions. By itself, not such a hindrance. Except for...

 

Mistake #2: The penalty for not having coverage was exceedingly less expensive than your premium.

 

So let's recap: You must buy insurance for $12,000/year and if you don't, we're going to fine you $500/year. Oh, and you can sign up any time and never be refused, so if you don't have coverage and choose to pay the fine, and THEN get sick, you get your coverage so you don't have to face bankruptcy.

 

It genuinely took a majority of Democrats to come up with that schitstorm of a plan.

 

I don't think that's entirely true- there is a enrollment period, and you can buy coverage on with qualifying event. We bought ACA plan in Maine because I left my job, and bought plans in Colorado when we changed residence-both of these changes were out of the annual enrollment period, but we're qualified events. There was also a month or two delay to when the policy was active even though we were paying.

 

Now if a sickness causes a job loss, then yes that is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think that's entirely true- there is a enrollment period, and you can buy coverage on with qualifying event. We bought ACA plan in Maine because I left my job, and bought plans in Colorado when we changed residence-both of these changes were out of the annual enrollment period, but we're qualified events. There was also a month or two delay to when the policy was active even though we were paying.

 

Now if a sickness causes a job loss, then yes that is correct.

how long ago did you do this?

 

if you're like me, you're actually still enrolled. i get an email a month talking about my enrollment in the aca from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

the trick is i am still enrolled in the aca plan, which i could not opt of out when i called, i just decline to use their coverage system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how long ago did you do this?

 

if you're like me, you're actually still enrolled. i get an email a month talking about my enrollment in the aca from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

the trick is i am still enrolled in the aca plan, which i could not opt of out when i called, i just decline to use their coverage system

A few years- I recall paying COBRA for 2-3 periods before our coverage kicked in, 1250/mo. What really sucked was when I covered adecitble in Maine for 6k mid year, then started over for a new one in Colorado mid year... then another the next enrollment period... theoretically 18k in decicle in 1.5 years.... that's when I decided to go back to work!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic concept of taxation is immoral

 

horseshit

 

You must buy insurance for $12,000/year and if you don't, we're going to fine you $500/year. Oh, and you can sign up any time and never be refused, so if you don't have coverage and choose to pay the fine, and THEN get sick, you get your coverage so you don't have to face bankruptcy.

 

 

march 16, 2017. the day i agreed with lab. mark it down. see you next year

 

 

This should be the approach.

 

it has to be the approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

horseshit

 

Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways:

 

1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned.

 

2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave.

 

Neither of these are moral arguments.

 

That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxation can be viewed in one of two ways:

 

1) That it is acceptable to rob a man at the barrel of a gun, and take from him what he has earned.

 

2) That a man doesn't actually own the fruits of his labor, but rather that the fruits of his labor belong to the state, and that the man is a slave.

 

Neither of these are moral arguments.

 

That basic concept of taxation itself is immoral.

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

Or sewer systems? Ya, taxes suck. Sewage is much worse

 

If we didn't have taxes we wouldn't have government. Without government no one would print money so taxes wouldn't matter anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without taxes how would you pay your city/county/state/federal employees? I'm not talking about the politicians, I mean police/fire/teachers/garbage men.

If one is not an anarchist, and believes that the concept of a "nation state" is the optimal way for humanity to organize itself, then one must submit to the notion that some degree and form of taxation is a necessary evil.

 

With that said, that is an acknowledgement that it is still an evil; and as such, taxes should only be collected in the least morally offensive way possible (a tax on consumption, which allows individuals to decide their own level of taxation through their purchasing decisions), and only to provide for the protection of the nation state in question, and the natural rights of it's citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one is not an anarchist, and believes that the concept of a "nation state" is the optimal way for humanity to organize itself, then one must submit to the notion that some degree and form of taxation is a necessary evil.

 

With that said, that is an acknowledgement that it is still an evil; and as such, taxes should only be collected in the least morally offensive way possible (a tax on consumption, which allows individuals to decide their own level of taxation through their purchasing decisions), and only to provide for the protection of the nation state in question, and the natural rights of it's citizens.

We had that taxation and rejected it as a nation. We made a decision, through the democratic process, which you probably have no idea about and adopted taxation through income. That debate already took place. Read up on the history of taxation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The horse trading has begun.

 

Some of the proposals to where they could bridge the gap are here, that's encouraging.

 

“It’s up for us, moderates and conservatives, to come together,” said Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina, coming out of a Wednesday evening meeting. “We’ve had conversations with moderates on what is important to them, and then we’ve look at what is important to conservatives, and I think it we can work out something that accommodates” both.

Meanwhile, GOP leaders and their top allies debated which changes they should make to the bill. Sources told POLITICO that Republican leaders were open to nixing a 30 percent penalty on individuals who went without insurance for two months, though it's unclear whether they would replace it with another measure to nudge people to sign up for coverage.

Others sources suggested that Republicans are seriously considering a plan to provide more generous tax credits to Americans nearing age 65, who are facing sharply higher premiums under the current proposal. Republicans have faced significant pressure from advocates for older Americans, including AARP, over estimates suggesting that Americans just under 65 could face substantially higher premiums.

Conservatives have also asked GOP leaders to consider allowing governors to require healthy Medicaid beneficiaries to work — or seek work — in order to qualify, another idea GOP leaders and the White House are pondering.

 

The White House has also leaned into conservatives' request to phase out the Medicaid expansion in early 2018 instead of at the close of 2019, which the current version of the bill would do. House GOP leadership has strongly resisted that move, worried that it could lead more centrist Republicans to flip from a lean-yes to a lean-no. But senior GOP sources said it was still in the mix as a potential amendment, and Vice President Mike Pence told Republican Study Committee members Wednesday that the administration was open to the earlier phase-out.

Pence also visited with the moderate Tuesday Group on Wednesday, and while he didn’t try to sell members on specific moves to the right, he warned them changes were coming.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise skipped out on his own weekly meeting with his whip team to join Pence at the centrists’ gathering, a move signaling just how important he felt it was to gauge their concerns. Tuesday Group co-chairman Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) said members expressed worries about rumors that the period in which people can enroll in expanded Medicaid programs could be shortened. He also indicated that centrists feel the current bill provides insufficient tax credits for some people who could find it hard to afford insurance under the proposal.

Appearing at the full GOP conference meeting Wednesday night, Pence tried to rally all Republicans to get excited about repealing the health care law — despite the clear challenges ahead. He opened the conference by holding up his pointer finger and his thumb one inch apart and declaring: “We are this close to history!”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMA urges GOP to go 'back to the drawing board'

 

The head of the American Medical Association (AMA) delivered a sharp warning Thursday to congressional Republicans, telling them to go “back to the drawing board” on their ObamaCare repeal-and-replace bill and warning that the bill's current version would take needed coverage away from people.

ObamaCare has provided coverage to 20 million new people, Gurman noted, and “the AMA’s highest priority is to ensure that these individuals maintain their coverage.” Gurman also warned against large cuts to Medicaid under the House GOP bill and said the new tax credits should be based on income to give more help to low-income people. The tax credits in the bill are currently based on age, not income.
Officials from the heart, cancer and diabetes groups also warned against Republican plans to weaken ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” which require insurers to cover a range of certain healthcare services. (mh - definitely!)
“The mantra is that people who don’t have insurance live sicker and die younger,” Gurman said. (mh - which is why you need the essential health benefits)
my morality says we should be concerned about our brothers and sisters like we are concerned about ourselves
my morality says the richest nation in the history of the modern world should cover everyone with health care so that everyone can get the preemptive attention that prevents them from getting serious diseases that cost a ѕhitload to treat later
my morality says oh by the way, it also keeps our brothers and sisters healthy so they dont have to suffer unnecessarily from things we can EASILY treat and often fix if we werent so damned selfish and petty
my morality says we should compete as humans on many levels, but access to real and quality health care should NOT be one of them
my morality says we should all chip in, with those blessed to make much more contributing much more. my morality said this even when i used to make well over a hundred thousand annually. and it sure as fk says it now that im broke and disabled
my morality says that taxes are one obligation to our commitment to watch out for each other as enlightened beings, even if some of us still have a long road to travel to get there
my morality says give ceasars things to ceasar and god's things to god
conclusion: stop worshiping money like its a god. money is a tool, nothing more. worship your commitment to recognizing your default relationship with all ppl. if you can do that everything else works A LOT better
Edited by Meathead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Officials from the heart, cancer and diabetes groups also warned against Republican plans to weaken ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” which require insurers to cover a range of certain healthcare services. (mh - definitely!)

 

 

 

They are going back to the drawing board and will go further towards expansion of coverage once it gets to the Senate.

 

Having said that, the "essential health benefits' is one of the most paternalistic overreaches I have ever seen from the US government. How in the hell are you going to mandate that a 62 year old have maternity coverage or a children's dental pediatric plan along with their coverage?

 

It's preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

can they split stuff like that out? idk what the relative costs are but i would think eventually its a wash. paternity might swing it tho, since thats so expensive all on its own. i cant think of an equivalent male medical expense that would be that consistently high

 

when i talk about minimum benefits i just mean for routine stuff, like mamograms and/or colonoscopys, etc. stuff that saves lives in the long run. but i do think it has to be pretty comprehensive to cover a wide range of standard conditions. yeah, its going to cost a lot but it has both moral and long term cost benefits


if they could make a list of stuff to split out of 'mandatory minimums' for specific ppl thats fine, but that seems incredibly complex - on top of whats already incredibly complex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...